Wendy Davis, the former Texas State Senator, made a liberal, yet ironically conservative, argument only Mila Kunis could replicate.
In the midst of violent shootings across the country, Davis vocalized her discontent for legislators who have no concern for gun reform in Cosmopolitan magazine.
According to the Huffington Post:
Wendy Davis knows that the fight against gun violence cannot be won without women, and in an op-ed for Cosmopolitan published on Thursday, she wrote about why women “shouldn’t shut up” about the pervasive issue ― and how they can work to fix it.
Davis opened the op-ed with a sampling of this week’s news headlines, about the mass shooting in Sunderland Springs that left 26 dead, as well as other shootings in Plano and North Austin.
he Sunderland Springs and Plano mass shootings both involved domestic violence in some capacity.
“While gun safety may not seem like a feminist issue at first blush, it doesn’t take too much digging to see that women are uniquely vulnerable to and disproportionately the victims of gun violence,” Davis wrote.
She cited the harrowing statistics that show how seriously women are affected by gun violence (54 percent of mass shootings, for example, involve domestic violence), and wrote about how important it is that women to take their rage to the ballot box.
So, logic would suggest (I know some individuals no longer employ logic–but bear with me) that if women are disproportionately victims of gun violence then they should be able to protect themselves…no?
Or shall they be sitting ducks, waiting for aggressive, violent men to prey upon them? Any takers?
The only way to deter these types of men from preying upon them is for women to respond, to defend themselves and their family.
Oh, but you don’t like guns, Wendy?
How do you suggest that these poor women protect themselves against these unwell humans who beat them?
Call their congressman? Wait for legislation to do away with all guns, as if they will magically disappear?
So, in ten years, when liberal congressmen effectively achieve that terrifying measure, it will be in honor of all of those women who have died…because, in your contradicting logic, women are the greatest victims and yet shouldn’t be armed against bigger, stronger attackers.
Or, you believe this is an extenuating circumstance and women SHOULD be armed. Which is it, Wendy?
I can’t imagine you saying that women are in danger and that they shouldn’t have every protection possible for themselves and their family.
So…how do they protect themselves? By voting AGAINST the NRA-supportive legislators?
I would assume those who hit their wives and open fire into churches aren’t really concerned about the law, norms, gun legislation. The individuals that women need protected from are those that don’t acknowledge the law. That live above the law (like many a-politician).
You’re suggesting–whether you know it or not–that they should be armed. And I agree with you.
You’re being complicit with domestic violence if you acknowledge the problem and don’t allow our society’s most vulnerable to do whatever they need to remain safe, out of harm’s way.
So what is it, Wendy? Can you answer that for me?